Creation scientists

[Amo]

Once again, if you even try to understand how science works you would not be using the term "wrong" in the sense that the original theory had zero merit.

I have never stated that the original theory had zero merit, though I obviously do not support it at all. I have repeatedly stated that it is the position of so many evolutionists that their theory is not just a scientific theory but a scientific fact, which makes their mistakes more than just the normal trial and error of ongoing scientific investigation in support of a theory. Scientific facts should not produce so very many wrong conclusions while being investigated. Can you show us other scientific facts which have produced as many wrong conclusions as that of evolutionists who claim their theory to be fact?

[Amo]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/04/200427125154.htm

Article quoted below from link above. Emphasis is mine, my comments in blue.

Rapid evolution in fish: Genomic changes within a generation

Date:
April 27, 2020

Source:
University of Basel

Summary:
Researchers have identified the genetic basis of rapid adaptation using a native fish species. They compared threespine stickleback fish from different habitats in the Lake Constance region. Their study reveals that changes in the genome can be observed within a single generation.

Evolution is usually viewed as a slow process, with changes in traits emerging over thousands of generations only. Over the recent years, however, research has indicated that adaptation in specific traits can occur more quickly. However, very few studies outside microorganisms were able to demonstrate empirically how quickly natural selection shapes the whole genome.

A research team led by Dr. Daniel Berner at the University of Basel's Department of Environmental Sciences has now provided evidence for rapid evolution within a single generation, using threespine stickleback fish as model organism. The five-year study combined lab work, field experiments, mathematical modeling and genomic analysis.

Different habitats: lakes and rivers

In the Lake Constance area, stickleback have adapted to ecologically different habitats -- lakes and rivers. To examine how quickly adaptation occurs across the genome, lake- and river-dwelling fish were crossed in the laboratory over several generations. The genomes of the two ecotypes were thus mixed, resulting in a genetically diverse experimental population.

In a second step, the researchers released thousands of these experimental fish into a natural river habitat without resident stickleback, exposing them to natural selection. After a year, the remaining fish were recaptured and examined genetically.

"The hypothesis of this experiment was that in the river habitat in which the experimental animals had to survive, genetic variants of the original river population would increase in frequency," says Berner. "However, we had no idea whether this would be measurable within a single generation."

Genomic analysis confirms hypothesis

To record potential changes in the genome, the researchers first had to identify the DNA regions most likely to be targeted by natural selection. To do so, they compared the original lake and river populations based on DNA sequence data. This revealed hundreds of regions in the genome likely important for adapting to the lake and river conditions. In precisely these regions, the experimental population's DNA sequence data from before and after the field experiment were then compared to identify changes in the frequency of genetic variants.

The result supported the hypothesis: on average, the frequency of the river variants increased by around 2.5% at the expense of the lake variants. "This difference might appear small at first glance, but is truly substantial when extrapolated over a few dozen generations," says Berner. The experiment demonstrates that evolution can occur very quickly right in front of our eyes -- and not only in microorganisms. "Such rapid evolution may help some organisms to cope with the current rapid environmental changes caused by humans," Berner concludes.


Story Source:
Materials provided by University of Basel. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

The above article begins by properly defining their experiment in relation to creatures ability to adapt to changing environments, but quickly confuses and identifies the same with the faulty theory of deep time evolution. The results of the experiment are of course immediately applied to said faulty theory according to the faith of those conducting the experiment and writing the article. Reality however, deals with the plain simple facts of the matter, which are themselves of course interpreted differently according to different faiths or world views if you will.

Increasing evidence of the ability among living things to rapidly adapt to changing environment by changing themselves, is not in fact conducive to supporting the theory of deep time random chance biological evolution. To the contrary, it quite obviously means that much less time was necessary to effect what we see today even according to the faulty theory of evolution. It also suggests even more strongly, that the ability to adapt and change was and is the result of design over random chance. Evolution itself is completely dependent upon the ability of life to adapt and change, while this ability itself is of an extremely complex nature, and far more likely to be the result of design than random chance.

Scientists keep finding more and more evidence as well that complexity in living things goes back much further than they previously thought. This is also more suggestive of complexity from the beginning and design over random chance evolution. The deep time scenario which evolutionists have postulated as necessary to their theory because of previous observations based upon a lack of information is rapidly losing ground. Evidence suggesting complexity from the beginning and rapid adaptability and change no longer require such deep time scenarios for evolution to be true, and of course were not ever necessary for creationism to be true.

Complexity seems to have developed further and further back in time to evolutionists because it was here from the beginning by God's special creation. The ability to adapt and or change from the beginning which is paramount to the theory of evolution, is also an obvious attribute of design from a God who not only intended for the life He created to be able to adapt and change, but foresaw the absolute necessity of such according to providence. Scientific experimental and testable observation have been continuously providing evidence that the things evolutionists once demanded required deep time scenarios, have been observed to be otherwise.

We now know for certain that not only can catastrophism radically change and alter the face and crust of this earth, but has obviously done so on a global scale, leaving deposits hundreds if not thousands of miles long and extremely deep all over the world. Even many evolutionists now believe in an almost global if not global flood they declare was caused by a huge meteor. While creationists of course stick to the biblical narrative. Evidence of major catastrophic event and burial exists all over the world in huge fossil burial grounds which simply continue to be found everywhere. We now know that coal, oil, and even diamonds can be produced rapidly under the right circumstance and environment which all catastrophism is likely to provide, not to mention the biblical global flood which would most certainly provide such. We can now make all of these things ourselves. Tie this to rapid fossilization which we also know to be possible under the same said conditions, and increasing evidence of the ability of rapid adaptation, or change, or evolution as those of that faith will determine, and there simply is not any longer a need for the deep time scenarios of yesterdays evolutionists.

Some of course will defend their deep time evolution scenario to the death. So be it.

[Amo]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/06/200609144448.htm

Article below from link above. Emphasis mine, my comments in blue.

Volcanic activity and changes in Earth's mantle were key to rise of atmospheric oxygen

Date:
June 9, 2020

Source:
University of Washington

Summary:
Evidence from rocks billions of years old suggest that volcanoes played a key role in the rise of oxygen in the atmosphere of the early Earth.

Oxygen first accumulated in the Earth's atmosphere about 2.4 billion years ago, during the Great Oxidation Event. A long-standing puzzle has been that geologic clues suggest early bacteria were photosynthesizing and pumping out oxygen hundreds of millions of years before then. Where was it all going?

Something was holding back oxygen's rise. A new interpretation of rocks billions of years old finds volcanic gases are the likely culprits. The study led by the University of Washington was published in June in the open-access journal Nature Communications.

"This study revives a classic hypothesis for the evolution of atmospheric oxygen," said lead author Shintaro Kadoya, a UW postdoctoral researcher in Earth and space sciences. "The data demonstrates that an evolution of the mantle of the Earth could control an evolution of the atmosphere of the Earth, and possibly an evolution of life."

Multicellular life needs a concentrated supply of oxygen, so the accumulation of oxygen is key to the evolution of oxygen-breathing life on Earth.

"If changes in the mantle controlled atmospheric oxygen, as this study suggests, the mantle might ultimately set a tempo of the evolution of life," Kadoya said.

The new work builds on a 2019 paper that found the early Earth's mantle was far less oxidized, or contained more substances that can react with oxygen, than the modern mantle. That study of ancient volcanic rocks, up to 3.55 billion years old, were collected from sites that included South Africa and Canada.

Robert Nicklas at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Igor Puchtel at the University of Maryland, and Ariel Anbar at Arizona State University are among the authors of the 2019 study. They are also co-authors of the new paper, looking at how changes in the mantle influenced the volcanic gases that escaped to the surface.

The Archean Eon, when only microbial life was widespread on Earth, was more volcanically active than today. Volcanic eruptions are fed by magma -- a mixture of molten and semi-molten rock -- as well as gases that escape even when the volcano is not erupting.

Some of those gases react with oxygen, or oxidize, to form other compounds. This happens because oxygen tends to be hungry for electrons, so any atom with one or two loosely held electrons reacts with it. For instance, hydrogen released by a volcano combines with any free oxygen, removing that oxygen from the atmosphere.

The chemical makeup of Earth's mantle, or softer layer of rock below the Earth's crust, ultimately controls the types of molten rock and gases coming from volcanoes. A less-oxidized early mantle would produce more of the gases like hydrogen that combine with free oxygen. The 2019 paper shows that the mantle became gradually more oxidized from 3.5 billion years ago to today.

The new study combines that data with evidence from ancient sedimentary rocks to show a tipping point sometime after 2.5 billion years ago, when oxygen produced by microbes overcame its loss to volcanic gases and began to accumulate in the atmosphere.

"Basically, the supply of oxidizable volcanic gases was capable of gobbling up photosynthetic oxygen for hundreds of millions of years after photosynthesis evolved," said co-author David Catling, a UW professor of Earth and space sciences. "But as the mantle itself became more oxidized, fewer oxidizable volcanic gases were released. Then oxygen flooded the air when there was no longer enough volcanic gas to mop it all up."
This has implications for understanding the emergence of complex life on Earth and the possibility of life on other planets.

"The study indicates that we cannot exclude the mantle of a planet when considering the evolution of the surface and life of the planet," Kadoya said.

This research was funded by the National Science Foundation.

Story Source:
Materials provided by University of Washington. Original written by Hannah Hickey. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

While there are as usual many presumptions stated as fact in the above article, as is the custom of evolutionists, I did appreciate the highlighted areas in the article which at least hinted of the possibility of being wrong. Terms such as "if" and "suggests" admit of of the possibility of being wrong, and "new interpretations" admit of previous ones which were either wrong or needed updating. Nevertheless, much of the article still speaks according to the false presumptions of observations concerning a theory being scientific reality. No scientific reality incorporates "ifs" or "suggestions" as scientific fact. Nor do scientific facts need new interpretations or upgrading.

Oxygen, as stated in the above article is essential to life on this planet. Theories concerning just how it came about, are just that. A theory which is totally dependent upon another theory, cannot be scientific fact. Evolution on this planet obviously requires oxygen, those who do not know for sure where or how oxygen even came about, certainly have no business claiming said theory reliant upon oxygen, is itself scientific fact. To the contrary, nothing can be more obvious than the fact that the theory of evolution is built upon one possibly faulty observation after another after another. As evolutionary scientists themselves have demonstrated in this article quoted and so very many others, faulty presumptions they have made in the past are constantly needing redefining.

Although Creationists go through some of the same movements over time, at least they admit from the get go that their theory is based upon faith in God's word.

Psa 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBYbMl_0t44

This video makes some good points regarding the issue of time, and currents methods and observations used to determine ages.

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wR_WuOQ95k

Another good video addressing among other things complexity from the cellular level, to plant and animal life, to ecosystems, biospheres, and the entire planet. The connectedness and interdependence of which is obviously far more suggestive of special creation with such incomprehensible complexity involved, than random chance deep time mutative development of the same.

[EYRose]

Quote article:  'Volcanic activity and changes in Earth's mantle were key to rise of atmospheric oxygen.'

What a load of juvenile JurassicParkPlaentofApesSpaceOdyssey2001 that article is!

Such prattlings of Earth being filled with molten rock and such when the Book of Enoch confirms Genesis 1:2 and commonsense in saying Earth is filled with the hot water that sad little Great Thunberg has been programmed to preach is actually heated by dirty smoke from petrol and diesel engines!

Anyone with the tiniest grasp pf science can analyse Genesis 1:2 and arrive at the conclusion that oxygen of the ball of water would react with the other elements to make a rigid crust a la eggshells?
GOD used the same process to make the moon and all the planets which all show dry river beds.
How He made the sun is a total mystery to me.

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OD4VnmBaXNw

Another good video addressing mutations.

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOw-dhe6SMc

Good video covering the basic importance of the creation and flood in relation to salvation and science.

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-DgpH5LQwE

Good video addressing possible Antediluvian structures.

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFSUkfyHMnc

Another ONE by WISE UP about possible Antediluvian structures. I like the music on this one.

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOIyJ7AiCOI

Another good one by WISE UP. Really like the music or sound effects on this one.

[Amo]

Just put my head phones on to hear the music from that last video. With it louder than the TV was, the music is actually a little creepy.

[The Barbarian]

I have never stated that the original theory had zero merit, though I obviously do not support it at all. I have repeatedly stated that it is the position of so many evolutionists that their theory is not just a scientific theory but a scientific fact,

There is the fact of evolution, which is directly observed to happen.    Then there is the theory of evolution, which explains it.   Just as gravity is a directly observed phenomenon, and there is a theory of gravition that Newton proposed to explain it.

You've confused the two.   

[Rella]

There is the fact of evolution, which is directly observed to happen.    Then there is the theory of evolution, which explains it.   Just as gravity is a directly observed phenomenon, and there is a theory of gravition that Newton proposed to explain it.

You've confused the two.

Confusion or no....

I want to know how much the possibility of cross breeding between species could have led to so much evolutionary ideas.

The link is just for example.....

https://www.wonderslist.com/10-amazing-animals-cross-breed/

There are many videos of house cats and house dogs giving birth to differing breeds

I well remember when a raccoon tried to breed with my mom's poodle when she was in season. Tried to follow her into the kitchen when she was being aired.... Dad had the presence of mind to kick the thing under its jaw and it ran off.

That would have been a new animal, and multiple babies who might interbreed would have created a line that would be new....

So for all we know.... cross breeding could well have existed from the beginning.

[Texas Conservative]

Confusion or no....

I want to know how much the possibility of cross breeding between species could have led to so much evolutionary ideas.

The link is just for example.....

https://www.wonderslist.com/10-amazing-animals-cross-breed/

There are many videos of house cats and house dogs giving birth to differing breeds

I well remember when a raccoon tried to breed with my mom's poodle when she was in season. Tried to follow her into the kitchen when she was being aired.... Dad had the presence of mind to kick the thing under its jaw and it ran off.

That would have been a new animal, and multiple babies who might interbreed would have created a line that would be new....

So for all we know.... cross breeding could well have existed from the beginning.

A wolf and a dog are the same species.  Two types of pigs breeding isn't worth mentioning either. 

[Alan]

Confusion or no....

I want to know how much the possibility of cross breeding between species could have led to so much evolutionary ideas.

The link is just for example.....

https://www.wonderslist.com/10-amazing-animals-cross-breed/

There are many videos of house cats and house dogs giving birth to differing breeds

I well remember when a raccoon tried to breed with my mom's poodle when she was in season. Tried to follow her into the kitchen when she was being aired.... Dad had the presence of mind to kick the thing under its jaw and it ran off.

That would have been a new animal, and multiple babies who might interbreed would have created a line that would be new....

So for all we know.... cross breeding could well have existed from the beginning.

In rare instances, species of the same family have been known to breed producing hybrids, but it's not possible outside the "family" of species so your example of a raccoon and a poodle could not have produced offspring.

More about the subject and taxonomic hierarchy here.

https://rangerplanet.com/difference-between-species-and-genus-simple-guide-examples/#:~:text=The%20main%20difference%20between%20species,below%20the%20Genus%20classification%20ranking.

[Texas Conservative]

Species isn't necessarily always completely clear and can change as more data becomes available.

DNA testing, or the biological portion of the the species designation can override the anatomical and environmental standards of classification.  Dogs are an example of this.  Wouldn't be surprised to see this happen with coyotes in the future.  Within certain zones, environmental standards may be pushed away as well as populations of wolves and coyotes further encroach.

[Amo]

There is the fact of evolution, which is directly observed to happen.    Then there is the theory of evolution, which explains it.   Just as gravity is a directly observed phenomenon, and there is a theory of gravition that Newton proposed to explain it.

You've confused the two.

There is the fact of change, not evolution. The theory of evolution is not necessary to explain the ability of living things to adapt or change. Such is far more likely the result of design than random chance "evolution". I do believe in devolution. It defintnitely has and does occur. We see and know that there is far less variety than there once was upon this earth. We continue to lose species rapidly even with the ability for change within existing ones. We also know that plants and animals of the past were far larger than those which now exist. Most if not all observable changes include a loss of genetic information, not gain. We observe for the most part, devolution not evolution. Perhaps you are the one confused.

[Alan]

There is the fact of change, not evolution. The theory of evolution is not necessary to explain the ability of living things to adapt or change. Such is far more likely the result of design than random chance "evolution". I do believe in devolution. It defintnitely has and does occur. We see and know that there is far less variety than there once was upon this earth. We continue to lose species rapidly even with the ability for change within existing ones. We also know that plants and animals of the past were far larger than those which now exist. Most if not all observable changes include a loss of genetic information, not gain. We observe for the most part, devolution not evolution. Perhaps you are the one confused.

Jocko Homo?

[Amo]

Jocko Homo?

https://archive.org/details/jockohomoheavenb00shad/page/4/mode/2up

Interesting. Looked at the first couple of pages and agree with the general thought. I'll have to find the time to read on.

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJcIdx4YwIA

Looking a little deeper into Dino flesh and blood.

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSjWaz3XQc8

Short video by deep time evolutionary proponents, about Antarctica once being filled with vegetation and lush forests.  Admitting of course of a very different world in our past, while denying such changes were brought about rapidly by global catastrophism, as the ever increasing number of mass graveyards we discover suggest. Interestingly, these "scientists" declare a world with much higher CO2 levels than todays world. If this is the case, it certainly could not have been humans that caused these high levels, according to their own deep time evolutionary scales. So what did? Where did all that carbon go, and why would the rise of carbon in our atmosphere again be considered an unnatural result of human activity? If we didn't cause it the first time what did? Why are so many politicians, and many "scientists" today, so sure that we are now the one's responsible for a phenomenon that occurred naturally before we ever existed according to their own scientific theories? Are we dealing with scientific truth, or manipulated science in support of one world view and political ideology over another?

2Th 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Those who have rejected the truthful testimony of God's word today, make themselves their own god in their wild "scientific" speculations, false religions, and ungodly governments or political systems and ideologies. All such are being called to a settled form of unity in defiance against the truths of God's word by the original man of sin whose ranks began falling away from the truth even in the Apostle Paul's day as testified in the above scriptures by him.

Excerpts from
ENCYCLICAL LETTER
CARITAS IN VERITATE
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS
PRIESTS AND DEACONS
MEN AND WOMEN RELIGIOUS
THE LAY FAITHFUL
AND ALL PEOPLE OF GOOD WILL
ON INTEGRAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
IN CHARITY AND TRUTH

Emphasis is mine, my comments in blue.

7. Another important consideration is the common good. To love someone is to desire that person's good and to take effective steps to secure it. Besides the good of the individual, there is a good that is linked to living in society: the common good. It is the good of "all of us", made up of individuals, families and intermediate groups who together constitute society[4]. It is a good that is sought not for its own sake, but for the people who belong to the social community and who can only really and effectively pursue their good within it. To desire the common good and strive towards it is a requirement of justice and charity. To take a stand for the common good is on the one hand to be solicitous for, and on the other hand to avail oneself of, that complex of institutions that give structure to the life of society, juridically, civilly, politically and culturally, making it the pólis, or "city"[/u]. The more we strive to secure a common good corresponding to the real needs of our neighbours, the more effectively we love them. Every Christian is called to practise this charity, in a manner corresponding to his vocation and according to the degree of influence he wields in the pólis. This is the institutional path — we might also call it the political path — of charity, no less excellent and effective than the kind of charity which encounters the neighbour directly, outside the institutional mediation of the pólis. When animated by charity, commitment to the common good has greater worth than a merely secular and political stand would have. Like all commitment to justice, it has a place within the testimony of divine charity that paves the way for eternity through temporal action. Man's earthly activity, when inspired and sustained by charity, contributes to the building of the universal city of God, which is the goal of the history of the human family. In an increasingly globalized society, the common good and the effort to obtain it cannot fail to assume the dimensions of the whole human family, that is to say, the community of peoples and nations[5], in such a way as to shape the earthly city in unity and peace, rendering it to some degree an anticipation and a prefiguration of the undivided city of God...................................

Now that a further twenty years have passed, I express my conviction that Populorum Progressio deserves to be considered "the Rerum Novarum of the present age", shedding light upon humanity's journey towards unity............................

13. In addition to its important link with the entirety of the Church's social doctrine, Populorum Progressio is closely connected to the overall magisterium of Paul VI, especially his social magisterium. His was certainly a social teaching of great importance: he underlined the indispensable importance of the Gospel for building a society according to freedom and justice, in the ideal and historical perspective of a civilization animated by love. Paul VI clearly understood that the social question had become worldwide [25] and he grasped the interconnection between the impetus towards the unification of humanity and the Christian ideal of a single family of peoples in solidarity and fraternity. In the notion of development, understood in human and Christian terms, he identified the heart of the Christian social message, and he proposed Christian charity as the principal force at the service of development..........................

16.....................

[44], but only on Christ, to whom every authentic vocation to integral human development must be directed. The Gospel is fundamental for development, because in the Gospel, Christ, "in the very revelation of the mystery of the Father and of his love, fully reveals humanity to itself"[45]. Taught by her Lord, the Church examines the signs of the times and interprets them, offering the world "what she possesses as her characteristic attribute: a global vision of man and of the human race"[46]. Precisely because God gives a resounding "yes" to man[47], man cannot fail to open himself to the divine vocation to pursue his own development. The truth of development consists in its completeness: if it does not involve the whole man and every man, it is not true development. This is the central message of Populorum Progressio, valid for today and for all time. Integral human development on the natural plane, as a response to a vocation from God the Creator[48], demands self-fulfilment in a "transcendent humanism which gives [to man] his greatest possible perfection: this is the highest goal of personal development"[49]. The Christian vocation to this development therefore applies to both the natural plane and the supernatural plane; which is why, "when God is eclipsed, our ability to recognize the natural order, purpose and the 'good' begins to wane"[50].

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. 4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. 5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. 7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. 8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. 9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: 10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. 11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised. 12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable. 13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. 14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. 15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. 16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

The man of sin ruling over that city he ever seeks to create and establish, BABYLON THE GREAT, calls for the unification of all this worlds religions, philosophical, "scientific", and political ideologies of all peoples and nations as the representation of his counterfeit city of God in rebellion against Him. The final strokes of this global deception will be direct warfare against all peoples who will stand firmly upon the word of God, and seek a city and country built by God Himself, not this antichrist man of sin presuming to build that city through the establishment and unification of fallen humanity in direct defiance of the teachings of God's word. Babyl-on Babylon. Tidings from the east and north will continue to greatly disturb you, and the moment you actually realize and accomplish your goal, it will end along with all other earthly authority. Then the real city of God will descend and be established forever.

Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. 5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. 6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. 7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. 8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Babylon's counterfeit city of god will be filled with the fearful, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, whoremongers, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars of this world. God's true city which the faithful wait for by faith according to God's word, will have none of the same. Fallen humanities attempt to create the city of God in contradiction to the teachings of His word, will only bring untold suffering and misery upon humanity and ultimately utterly fail in ruin at the literal presence of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ at His second coming. Come Lord Jesus.

[Amo]

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ancient+aliens&docid=607996111646822189&mid=AB4A31EE3330B1E0B03EAB4A31EE3330B1E0B03E&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

Just watched this video from the series Ancient Aliens from the History channel. I've seen a few others as well. This show routinely takes the evidence of advanced tech. societies of the past, and attributes it to alien contact or influence, while ignoring the biblical account of the antediluvian world as the more probable source of such.

This particular show centers upon the ancient stone giants or statues. Quite a bit of speculation regarding their purpose being more than just art or idols. It ties together such info. as their locations, materials of construction which favor electric current or storage in some instances, magnetic fields or qualities and what have you, as evidence that they may have been more than just statues. Suggesting possible use as energy storage or conduits, information storage of some type similar to our modern discovery and use of crystal for super storage of info., and even communication with or travel of aliens or us between worlds and or universes. Towards the end it even suggests that we may be bringing such manifestations back by digging these ancient statues up, repairing them, and in many cases placing them back where they originally stood.

I think they are somewhat correct, but in a very different way than they speculate or suppose. Having rejected the testimony of scripture in favor of their own "wisdom", their so called sciences are being manipulated by the evil one and leading them right back to the same beliefs and eventual practices which brought God's judgment upon this world in its destruction the first item around.

Many of our more mysterious discoveries regarding the ancient world are in fact either of antediluvian origin, or regarding Noah's family and their immediate descendants and what they accomplished while the knowledge of such was rapidly disappearing. Many of these ancient temples, their idols, and societies were built atop or upon the vanishing remains or ruins of the antediluvian world as well. It is no surprise that the greatest idol of humanity today, so called "science", is reconnecting with the great idols of our past and forming new deceptions accordingly. The false religions and idol worship of old were directly connected to ancient alien beings called fallen angels, whom the antediluvians themselves fell victim too. Now as these ancient societies and artifacts are resurrected, modern idol worshipers of "science" are building upon these foundations once again. Looking to the same aliens, fallen angels in disguise, to support their same rebellion against the word of God. These aliens, demons, are very real. It seems this is an avenue, if not the avenue through which they will and are again deceiving the entire world.

Scientists, religionists, and atheists are all coming to accept that we are visited and contacted by these aliens. Their rejection of the testimony of God's word, in favor of the idol of their own wisdom as they see it, is leading them directly into satanic deception and servitude. Demons have already and will continue to walk right into the lives of countless people under the guise of aliens with messages of enlightenment. So be it.

If or when our governments or other institutions finally do come forward and reveal discoveries and information they have been hiding from us, such will no doubt have already been packaged to sell to the public under the guise of demonic deception concerning aliens, rather than accordance with the testimony of God's word.

Rev 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. 10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. 11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. 12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. 13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child. 14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. 15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood. 16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth. 17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

The above commandment of God separates all who believe and keep it, from all the idols of this world used by the evil one unto deception. All those who stray from its testimony for religious, scientific, philosophical, or any other cause or reasons, are subject to the deceiving power of the idols they have chosen above the same.

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7UmGEMduI8

A good video questioning the generally accepted narrative given concerning the Pyramids and other ancient structures in and around them and abroad. Many rest upon the top of even more high tech structures they were apparently built upon or over. Both the Pyramids and the structures they sit upon point to a loss of information, technology, and skill over time, not gain. The complete opposite of what the evolutionary and false historical narrative attached to the same, speculate. The evidence of the loss of information, skill, and tech. is buried all over the world. Many of the ancient kingdoms we know of were built upon the ruins of those before them, and even claimed such. Their lives, societies, religion, and even politics were built upon the ruins of the superior artifacts and tech they found and deified as their gods.

Of course the video opts out of biblical testimony as usual, the testimony of which fits the actual evidence very well. A previous world filled with plants, animals, and people of greater vitality, intellect, and physical stature than now exist was wiped out by God in a global flood. This is the evidence that is abundant all over the earth, upon which many others built their societies, which the deniers Peter predicted have been trashing, hiding, ignoring, or ridiculing for centuries now. They will not hear or accept the truth, therefore they are left to deception.


2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

[The Barbarian]

There is the fact of change, not evolution.

That's what evolution is.  "Change in allele frequency in a population over time. "   Thought you knew that.

The theory of evolution is not necessary to explain the ability of living things to adapt or change.

Change only requires mutation.   Adaptation requires mutation and natural selection.  That was Darwin's great discovery.

I do believe in devolution.

That's like saying you don't believe in energy, but you believe in denergy.   It's just verbiage.

It defintnitely has and does occur. We see and know that there is far less variety than there once was upon this earth.

That's happened many times before.   Earth has always gone though times of expanding variety and decreasing variety.   Would you like to learn about it?

We also know that plants and animals of the past were far larger than those which now exist.

Some were larger, some were smaller.   

Most if not all observable changes include a loss of genetic information, not gain.

That's atestable claim.  Give us an example, and show us your numbers.   You do know how to calculate genetic information in a population, right?    Or would you like me to show you, again?

We observe for the most part, devolution not evolution.

Perhaps you are the one confused.

[Amo]

That's what evolution is.  "Change in allele frequency in a population over time. "   Thought you knew that.

I know of the statement made by some including yourself, certainly not any truth connected to it. So is this the evolution Darwin preached? Do you have a statement to that effect from him?

Change only requires mutation.   Adaptation requires mutation and natural selection.  That was Darwin's great discovery.

That was Darwin's great presumption. Change and adaption are built in parts of God's design according to His foreknowledge of the need for the same, not proof of the false theory of evolution.

That's like saying you don't believe in energy, but you believe in denergy.   It's just verbiage.

Only in your evolutionarily twisted mind.

That's happened many times before.   Earth has always gone though times of expanding variety and decreasing variety.   Would you like to learn about it?

There is nothing to learn from the vain imaginings and speculations of fallen humanity. I know from the word of God and evidence all around us, that much of what once was, is no longer. This according to testimony of scripture which you and most all evolutionists reject, according to your own supposed superior understanding. I care not for your unobservable wild speculations.

Some were larger, some were smaller.

This is according to your faulty understanding regarding evolution. Which theory requires that everything as much smaller at one time, does it not? Or does evolution include development of extremely large creatures along side much smaller ones in the early stages of your fairy tale theory?

That's atestable claim.  Give us an example, and show us your numbers.   You do know how to calculate genetic information in a population, right?    Or would you like me to show you, again?

Your entire theory is built upon one presumption upon another. Why would I want you to show me anything about your non stop presumptions. If you have an example of mutations which resulted in increased genetic information, please do provide them, and we can go from there. I care nothing about calculating genetic information in populations. Nor does or would increased singular cases of increased genetic information due to mutations prove evolution over creation. Nevertheless, I would be interested in any proved cases of such.

Perhaps you are the one confused.

No, the evidence for devolution is all around us in the fossil record, and the ever disappearing species and variety of the world today. Your false theory just makes account of the much greater variety and size of the plants and animals that once existed on this world, by stretching the time frame of their existence unto countless millions of years, over which time you claim they developed. To the contrary though, this world was once very different than now only so many thousands of years ago, and supported a far greater variety of life. You simply reject biblical testimony and buried evidence of the same the world over. Applying it instead to your pet beloved theory of evolution in direct contradiction to God's word. So be it.

[4WD]

I know of the statement made by some including yourself, certainly not any truth connected to it.

And you what is truth concerning that?  I seriously doubt it.

So is this the evolution Darwin preached?

Why does that even matter" I seriously doubt that Darwin even had the remotest thought about allele frequency.  Nevertheless that doesn't really change much or most of what his conclusions were all about.

Newton didn't have a clue about relativity and the curvature of spacetime, yet his conclusion about gravity was quite adequate for most things.  It got our astronauts to the moon and back and a whole lot more.

[Amo]

And you what is truth concerning that?  I seriously doubt it.Why does that even matter" I seriously doubt that Darwin even had the remotest thought about allele frequency.  Nevertheless that doesn't really change much or most of what his conclusions were all about.

Newton didn't have a clue about relativity and the curvature of spacetime, yet his conclusion about gravity was quite adequate for most things.  It got our astronauts to the moon and back and a whole lot more.

Of course I do not know the truth concerning allele frequencies, simpletons such as myself simply are not privy to the superior intellect and knowledge which the new prophets of God, "scientists" such as Barb and yourself are. We have no choice but to believe the silly words or stories of the prophets of scripture, because we just cannot fathom the superior deep truths of God's revelation which you now have. So in our blind ignorance we argue against your, as it were divine wisdom in all things, and cling to the fables of Moses, and the other Prophets, and our Lord and savior Jesus Christ, and His apostles. We have no other choice being so inferior to the giants of intellect today such as yourselves.

Barb says evolution is change in allele frequency. If Darwin had no clue concerning it, then how could he have understood evolution? If on the other hand he could understand it without such knowledge, then why is such held up before myself or others, as though we cannot understand what evolutionists are really saying without knowing or understanding it? Which is it? Is it some kind of standard which must be understood to truly understand evolution, or not? If so, then apparently Darwin did not really understand his own theory. If not, then why try to hold it over other peoples heads as though it was? Are you not grasping at straws to defend your precious?

The article below suggests that there is not total agreement among "scientists" concerning the fact that evolution is change in allele frequencies.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/evolution-is-not-the-change-in-allele-frequencies

Evolution is not the change in allele frequencies?

In The Hopeless Monster? Not so fast! Bora says:

In a back-and-forth with a commenter, Coyne defends himself that he is talking about the changes in genes, not evolution. This just shows his bias - he truly believes that evolution - all of it - can be explained entirely by genetics, particularly population genetics.

His preferred definition of evolution is probably the genocentric nonsense like "evolution is a change of gene frequencies in a population over time".

I prefer to think of it as "evolution is change in development due to ecology" (a softening of Van Valen's overly-strong definition "evolution is control of development by ecology"). Population genetics is based on the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium - pretty much all of it is a build-on and embellishment of it. Population geneticists tend to forget, once they get into complex derivations of HW, that HW has about a dozen completely unrealistic assumptions underlying it. Now, in a case-to-case basis, some of those assumptions can be safely ignored, some can be mathematically taken care of, but some are outside of the scope of mathematics (or at least the kind of math that can be integrated into the development of HW). Those are ignored or dismissed and, if this is pointed out by those working on evolution from a Bigger Picture perspective, met with anger.

First I would like to observe that the HW is the jumping off point for many models, but obviously population genetics' bread & butter explores the large space of deviations from that ideal (i.e., a population at HW equilibrium is not subject to selection, mutation, migration, etc.). I think Bora's exposition here would definitely mislead; don't confuse the brick for the house. But is this "nonsense"? I'm not very "religious" about the whole "evolution is change in allele frequencies" or it isn't debate; other definitions just don't seem as clear and useful, but I'm willing to entertain them. Also, Bora's fixation on "genocentrism" is often hard to figure out, but I really stopped paying attention to that when he started posting strange things like Genocentrism aids Anti-Abortion Arguments. I am asking for an intervention if I ever post something titled "Evo-devo supports Fabian socialism," just so you know. Since a fair number of evolutionary biologists read this bog, I'd like some input on the whole "evolution is allele frequencies" debate. Because I tend to think from a genetic angle in terms of models and formalisms operating upon them it makes sense that this is a clear way for me conceptualize the issues (I mean, to a great extent population genetics has always been rooted in the allele frequency line of thinking). But I am interested in what others have to say, as my interest in paleontology of late should make clear. The standard population genetic definition captures the essential point about heritable transmission; which seems critical to highlight in any biological evolutionary context. It's a clear & distinct idea. But that doesn't mean that other ideas don't offer value-add in terms of insight or utility in their own contexts of course, I just don't know as much about alternatives. Note: I am aware of those who argue that gene-gene interactions & networks really modify the "change in allele frequencies" mantra, I definitely think there is something to that (I have a strong interest in statistical epistasis). But that seems to just a variation of the "genocentric" outlook. We're starting with the same brick and just assembling a bit differently. Sewall Wright was one of the founders of population genetics and for most of his career gene-gene interactions were central elements within his substructure based models. Update:Greg Laden weighs in:

In the end, however, there is a larger question: What the hell are you'all talking about anyway? I find that the discussion of "hopeful monsters" and saltational evolution has not addressed the essential, fundamental question of adaptation. This may be because most of the people who are talking about it are not adaptationists, and the current trend in the blogosphere is to be anti-adaptationist (it seems to me). But this is a conversation about adaptations and how they arise, so this is something we should talk about.

Right. Bora has a tendency to talk about "nonsense" or how "old-fashioned" "genocentrism" is, but I really don't get a clear sense of what he's positing to replace it. To say, for example, that multi-level selection is the future is fine, but even those who prioritize individual selection agree that selection occurs on multiple levels. To really proceed with any discussion you need to clarify how exactly the selection occurs and what the relation between the levels are in the real world. Too often critics of "orthodox" population genetics play the game of critique without generating much in terms of a counter-system. The beauty of population genetics is that its relatively simple formalism does make it easy to critique; some of the algebra and other mathematical methods can be a bit hard to follow, but ultimately all that's needed is time & effort. No hermeneutical analysis of cryptic texts is needed. I don't think one can say the same for the arch-anti-adaptationist, Stephen Jay Gould, who liked to deal in words. One might wonder as to the clarity of someone so often misunderstood. Finally, in the comments Bora states:

Coyne is a knee-jerk anti-Gouldian and he will use any opportunity to slander Gould, appropriate or not. And I am not an adaptationist myself, but the questions of the origin of diversity and the origin of adaptation are central questions of Biology which can partly, but only partly, be explained at the level of the genes.

First, I doubt as a geneticist such as Jerry Coyne spends much time thinking about Steve Gould's ideas much. Second, I just checked Speciation (use search inside on Amazon) and I don't see a strong anti-Gouldian ax grinding. There's some skepticism, but we're not talking about Darwin's Dangerous Idea here. Finally, I think it might be relevant to point out that from what I recall Jerry Coyne comes out of Dick Lewontin's lab at Harvard, and Lewontin was long a collaborator with Gould (e.g., spandrels). So I am wondering why Bora claims Coyne is an "anti-Gouldian"? In this thread and over at Greg's Bora has mentioned that this sort of controversy is going to be great for traffic. All for the good, but controversy should be grounded in accurate representations of the arguments. Jerry Coyne an "anti-Gouldian"? Population genetics just an embellishment of the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium? Come on. Many of the readers of ScieneBlogs don't know much about population genetics or Jerry Coyne, and comments by ScienceBloggers carry some weight and authority. Can we be a little cautious and sacrifice rhetorical positioning for the sake of some fidelity to reality? I do believe that in the end Truth will win out, but cutting out the noise can help in reducing the time until resolution.

[Amo]

https://creation.com/zippy-fossil-finds

Good article about rapid fossil formation at the above link.

[4WD]

https://creation.com/zippy-fossil-finds

Good article about rapid fossil formation at the above link.

Why do you keep assigning the quality of "good" to articles that speak on a subject that it seems you know nothing about?

[Amo]

Why do you keep assigning the quality of "good" to articles that speak on a subject that it seems you know nothing about?

Of course I and all others who have a different view than your own regarding fossils or what have you, simply cannot actually know anything, can we? No doubt if I supplied articles regarding fossils which you agreed with and called them good, you would then think that I did know something of the subject, would you not? Correct me if I am wrong. You may of course choose to be your own standard, and I may of course choose and do choose not to accept that standard.

You have made your accusation, now perhaps you can enlighten me or us regarding the ignorance demonstrated in the article. Rather than just make an accusation. Are you denying that fossils can form rapidly enough to debunk the need for the millions of years regularly applied to them? Or is there some other problem you are thinking of?

[4WD]

Are you denying that fossils can form rapidly enough to debunk the need for the millions of years regularly applied to them?

I don't have the expertise to debunk such a need; nor do you have the expertise to affirm it.

[Amo]

I don't have the expertise to debunk such a need; nor do you have the expertise to affirm it.

Speak for yourself, God has not created a world of intellectual dwarfs, intended to be subjugated to a few supposed intellectual giants. The issues simply are not that complicated, accepting among those who wish it to be so. Those who think their superior knowledge is above the comprehension of others, or that others are simply not intelligent enough to understand what they are capable of understanding. To the contrary, we were created with reasoning powers and intellect, for the exact purposes of curiosity, inquiry, and ever increasing knowledge. We most certainly can understand that which we may observe concerning fossil formation and of course a great many other things.

[4WD]

We most certainly can understand that which we may observe concerning fossil formation and of course a great many other things.

I could be wrong but I doubt that you have ever "observed" anything whatsoever concerning fossil formation.

[Amo]

I could be wrong but I doubt that you have ever "observed" anything whatsoever concerning fossil formation.

No, you are not wrong, I have not personally observed fossil formation. Just as you have not personally observed evolution, yet you believe and defend it. We each rely on the recorded observations of others. As is most common for the majority of us.